Millionaire$~ 10 million of them

mickeyd

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
6,674
Location
South Texas~29N/98W Just West of Woman Hollering C
This article is a year old so I suppose that there are 10M of them by now. Read the story and learn how to join the group. Already a member of the two comma club? See how you compare to others.

A record 9.63 million households had a net worth of $1 million or more last year, a 58 percent increase from 2008. The number of affluent households worth between $100,000 and $1 million also went up in 2013

Record Number of Millionaire Households in 2013
 
An "affluent household" is worth over $100,000 according to that article.

Maybe my internal calculator is off, but I hardly think $100K net worth would be considered affluent in this country today. Comfortable maybe.
 
I agree with you. 100k will definitely provide plenty of cushion for any major cost or job loss. But it is far from affluent.
 
Apparently they consider a net worth of $100k as an "affluent" household? Or more specifically, "Mass Affluent Households, with a net worth between $100,000 and $1 million, Not Including Primary Residence (NIPR)."

Whatever "mass affluent" means. The referenced report, which has been updated for 2015, costs 50 bucks and the Time article is no more than an executive summary.

BUT, the point is, the numbers of households with a net worth of this value has reached pre-recession levels. Which is good news for the households, but apparently even better news for financial advisors and brokers.
 
Depends on age. I would consider $100k affluent for a 30-year-old, but certainly not for someone in ER.
 
An "affluent household" is worth over $100,000 according to that article.

Maybe my internal calculator is off, but I hardly think $100K net worth would be considered affluent in this country today. Comfortable maybe.

+1

According to Federal Reserve (link below), median US household NW is $81k. So $100k NW is above ave, but I would not say rich (affluent).

Agree 100% with Which Roger that interpretation of NW needs to include consideration of age. According to the Fed, the bottom 25% of US HH's have a NEGATIVE mean NW. However there's a big difference between a recent college grad with student loans but a good six-figure job vs a retiree trying to scape by on just SS.

FRB: Federal Reserve Bulletin

The other thing I find very misleading about these NW surveys is that they ignore the value of future payments/services. A 55yo retired couple that just sold their life-long small business and has $500k in assets but no pension benefits looks "affluent" in the original survey. Another couple who recently retired with only $50k in "assets" but with a pension of $40k/yr plus retiree health insurance looks poor in such surveys. In reality, the latter couple has a significantly higher functional NW due to the future value of that pension/benefits package.
 
When they compare these numbers over the years, do they take inflation into account? For instance, they say there were 9.2M millionaire households in 2007, and 9.63M in 2013.

Well, inflation has been fairly low, but time does march on. $1M in 2013 is the equivalent of only $890K in 2007. Conversely, $1M in 2007 is the equivalent of $1,124,000 in 2013.

My guess is that they don't take inflation into account, because of the extra math involved, but I could be wrong.

I'll be curious to see the 2014 numbers, as that's where I finally joined that club. Actually, since those figures are net worth and not just investible assets, I might have joined it in 2013. :dance:
 
Let's be aware of the purpose of this survey. It is not about some gov't program, or some university research on "retirement preparedness".

It is market research. The "Spectrem Group" provides information to financial advisers. Their focus is going to be on how much money that FA can manage. Pensions, Social Security, even home equity, aren't terribly important to them. This tip-of-the-iceberg factoid is intended to tell FAs something about the size of their target market. (And, of course, suggest that Spectrem might be a good place to get more detailed information.)

About Spectrem Group
 
Fortunately, the US Census Bureau has compiled data that shed some light on this.

http://www.census.gov/people/wealth/files/Wealth distribution 2000 to 2011.pdf

See Table A1 on Page 7.
Thanks. It's hard to find two-dimensional data like this.

Very roughly, this says that about 10% of families in the 65-74 range have $1 million or more, including house but excluding pensions.

We had another thread where somebody said only 8% of 65-year-olds are "wealthy" or "finincially independent". Nobody knew where that came from, maybe this fits.
 
Because of inflation, millionaire means something quite different as time goes on. I know we all pretty much know that, but the numbers are kind of interesting:

From Millionaire - Wikipedia

Historical worth

Depending on how it is calculated, a million US dollars in 1900 is equivalent to ($28.3 million in 2015).

$24,766,584.77 using the consumer price index,
$21,224,697.05 using the GDP deflator,
$114,128,571.43 using the unskilled wage,
$162,813,054.25 using the nominal GDP per capita,
$641,531,874.47 using the relative share of GDP,

Thus one would need to have almost thirty million dollars today to have the purchasing power of a US millionaire in 1900, or more than a hundred million dollars to have the same impact on the US economy.
 
Because of inflation, millionaire means something quite different as time goes on.

i2NncpcC_400x400.jpeg
 
Net worth Percentile Rank Calculator | Shnugi

It takes 4.5 Million to just enter upper 2% households. Most people here certainly can be FI unless they are pretty big spenders.

It takes about 1.1 million to enter group mentioned in OPs article. That number is far from being FI unless one is 62 year old :) and collects SS.

And there will be lot of people in between as far as being FI goes.
 
It's interesting to me that measure is "households". To get some perspective there were 121.1 million households in 2012 in the US. So a net worth of at least $1M puts a household in the top 8%. A million bucks aint what it used to be (but it is still a blessing) and the line of people who don't have that much is very long.
 
I always get confused by what constitutes a "household". For instance, in my case, I'm single, but have two unrelated house mates who rent from me. Would we be considered one household, or three?

If I have a NW of $1M, and the two of them have nothing, it doesn't seem right that either one of them could say "I'm in the top 8%".
 
A million bucks aint what it used to be

So very true. I'm well into the multi millions club but I sure don't feel rich, wealthy or affluent.
 
Last edited:
I always get confused by what constitutes a "household". For instance, in my case, I'm single, but have two unrelated house mates who rent from me. Would we be considered one household, or three?

If I have a NW of $1M, and the two of them have nothing, it doesn't seem right that either one of them could say "I'm in the top 8%".

A "household" is a group of people that could be on the same tax form.... basically your spouse, dependent children and/or family members.

Roommates don't count; a SO that you live with, but do not include as a dependent, doesn't count; kids that are listed as a dependent, but do not live at home do count.
 
I always get confused by what constitutes a "household". For instance, in my case, I'm single, but have two unrelated house mates who rent from me. Would we be considered one household, or three?

If I have a NW of $1M, and the two of them have nothing, it doesn't seem right that either one of them could say "I'm in the top 8%".
Statistically, you're a rare case.

As far as I can tell, the three of you are one "household", specifically a "nonfamily household",
you are not a "family", and no one individual is a "family",
you are three "consumer units".

https://www.census.gov/cps/about/cpsdef.html
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CEX)

Statistically speaking, the biggest difference between households and families is that there are a lot of one person "households", but there are no one person "families".

"A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. A house, an apartment or other group of rooms, or a single room, is regarded as a housing unit when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters; that is, when the occupants do not live with any other persons in the structure and there is direct access from the outside or through a common hall.

A household includes the related family members and all the unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the housing unit. A person living alone in a housing unit, or a group of unrelated people sharing a housing unit such as partners or roomers, is also counted as a household. The count of households excludes group quarters. There are two major categories of households, "family" and "nonfamily". (See definitions of Family household and Nonfamily household)."

A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family. Beginning with the 1980 Current Population Survey, unrelated subfamilies (referred to in the past as secondary families) are no longer included in the count of families, nor are the members of unrelated subfamilies included in the count of family members. The number of families is equal to the number of family households, however, the count of family members differs from the count of family household members because family household members include any non-relatives living in the household.

A consumer unit consists of any of the following: (1) All members of a particular household who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangements; (2) a person living alone or sharing a household with others or living as a roomer in a private home or lodging house or in permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who is financially independent; or (3) two or more persons living together who use their incomes to make joint expenditure decisions. Financial independence is determined by spending behavior with regard to the three major expense categories: Housing, food, and other living expenses. To be considered financially independent, the respondent must provide at least two of the three major expenditure categories, either entirely or in part.
 
Last edited:
Because of inflation, millionaire means something quite different as time goes on. I know we all pretty much know that, but the numbers are kind of interesting:
.
I'm old enough to remember 1958, but not old enough to remember 1900.:)

So my frame of reference is John Beresford Tipton, Jr. and his drive to give away $1 million every week (always "tax free").

I can remember calculating that at only 2.5% interest, that would produce an incredible annual income of $25,000.

Using the CPI series, I would need $8.4 million today to match that $1 million, and $210,000 to match the $25,000.
 
I'm old enough to remember the early 70's. That timeframe doesn't seem all that long ago. Yet, in 1974, my Granddad retired after something like 35 years of railroad work, with a nice pension, and in his final year he was making $6/hour. Adjusting for inflation, that would be around $28.44/hr today, or about $59K per year at a 40 hour work week. Doing railroad work though, I imagine he had a pretty strong union, and probably got a lot of overtime. I know he was important enough, that during WWII, when telephones were a rare luxury, he had one, so that his employer could get ahold of him on a whim.

I started getting serious about buckling down and focusing on retirement back in 1998, once I finally cleared out some debt from a bad divorce, and was able to get serious about investing and saving again. At the time, I figured that if I had $1M, and was mortgage-free, I'd be all set. However, adjusting for inflation, even in that short timeframe (seems short to me at least), the equivalent of that in 2015 would be $1.434M and no mortgage.
 
10 million! Wow there are a lot is us out there aren't there, and we thought we were in the top 1%. That is a good thing though right?
 
Back
Top Bottom